Are Contraceptives a Universal Human Right?

I'd still vote yes if there was a local decision to supply free condoms at health clinics.

I'd vote no for the world police (UN) mandating that contraceptives be given out free the world over.

The first one is what your article is dealing with Scott. The latter is no where near what the UN are trying to achieve. Seriously people, ok the wording isnt great, but see the wood for the fucking trees for once... (and yes that includes you AoG)

whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8 now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything?

I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.

And of course there's no need for married couples to have contraceptives, because the only reason they have sex is to make babies, right?!

In the US, legal restrictions to contraceptives are removed (although I'm sure someone will quote some obscure state law in Wyoming restricting condoms for purchase only on weekdays between 9 AM and 12 PM). I agree with that patrticular right to privacy.

But what are cultural and financial restrictions? The phrase "financial restriction" sounds like free condoms to me. And while I like free condoms, I don't want to pay for other people to have free condoms.

We all need to clarify what we are talking about here. We are now talking about ACCESS to contraceptives, right?

whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8 now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything? The reason things have gone downhill in the last 30-40 years is this idea that sexual love is greater than the love of self, family, and God. It's about time we kind of toned things down. I mean, if you look at how much sexuality is promoted by the mass media (most of it from those lib-tards in hollywood), it's just sickening.

I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.

That is your belief and I respect you for it. However that does not give you the right to stomp on the beliefs of others that do not share your views (or religion).

Did you think that the conversation was about "contraceptives being a universal right" instead of "access to contraceptives" being a universal right?

thegreekdog wrote:In the US, legal restrictions to contraceptives are removed (although I'm sure someone will quote some obscure state law in Wyoming restricting condoms for purchase only on weekdays between 9 AM and 12 PM). I agree with that patrticular right to privacy.

But what are cultural and financial restrictions? The phrase "financial restriction" sounds like free condoms to me. And while I like free condoms, I don't want to pay for other people to have free condoms.

financial restriction interferes with access. There can be no financial restrictions.

Sorry, you must pay for other peoples condoms. We can restrict your property and your liberty in order to make sure you do not restrict other peoples right to access contraceptives.

thegreekdog wrote:In the US, legal restrictions to contraceptives are removed (although I'm sure someone will quote some obscure state law in Wyoming restricting condoms for purchase only on weekdays between 9 AM and 12 PM). I agree with that patrticular right to privacy.

But what are cultural and financial restrictions? The phrase "financial restriction" sounds like free condoms to me. And while I like free condoms, I don't want to pay for other people to have free condoms.

financial restriction interferes with access. There can be no financial restrictions.

Sorry, you must pay for other peoples condoms. We can restrict your property and your liberty in order to make sure you do not restrict other peoples right to access contraceptives.

A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.

A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.

What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.

then pull up your skirt and cough the money up yourself

Eh I donate to charitys active in Africa. I specify non-religious ones too so I may very well already lifting my skirt if that's what you are on about.

But that's not really the point. You're (deliberately?) missing the point to push your agenda. BBS would call this classic phattism.

A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.

then pull up your skirt and cough the money up yourself

Eh I donate to charitys active in Africa. I specify non-religious ones too so I may very well already lifting my skirt if that's what you are on about.

But that's not really the point. You're (deliberately?) missing the point to push your agenda. BBS would call this classic phattism.

whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything? The reason things have gone downhill in the last 30-40 years is this idea that sexual love is greater than the love of self, family, and God. It's about time we kind of toned things down. I mean, if you look at how much sexuality is promoted by the mass media (most of it from those lib-tards in hollywood), it's just sickening.

I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.

That's right folks, be ashamed of your bodies, and feel bad for wanting to enjoy them. whitestazn88 knows how disgusting and repugnant sexual promiscuity is on account of his never having had sex. He therefore knows first hand how destructive sex is to people's lives. Although never haven experienced it, he is also fully aware of how hollow and empty you feel after having sex with someone you don't love.

Seriously what is this garbage? contraceptives are causing moral degradation of our society? What retarded bullshit and all manner of other kinds of shit. People have been having as much sex as they possibly could since the beginning of time, with or without contraceptives. It's kindoff why prostitution is called the oldest profession. Either world society has been in constant decline since forever or we've always been more or less the same way.

whitest: 1Baron: 0

sigh I was trolled.

Don't judge until you've drove a mile to an elementary school in another man's windowless van AoG.

Better access to contraceptives are not as huge a factor in my opinion. It's societies acceptance that using them with your neighbor's spouse is only natural. That drives more of the problems. Marriage is broken. I understand, being married is quite a bit tougher than it looks.

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Everything the government does can be rationalized as having a savings to the taxpayer. But this is a sophistry based on an assumption of future obligation.

Anyway, I was very skeptical about Scott's claims as it seemed he was confusing a negative right with a positive right. As I said, I would agree contraception is a negative right (people should have the right to get contraceptives without state interference / people should have a right to wear a crucifix) but not a positive right (the state should be obligated to provide contraceptives / the state should be obligated to buy everyone a crucifix who wants one). However, in reading the UN statement it appears, in fact, that they are promoting this as a positive right:

Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.

Clearly the implication here - by reference to "poor" countries instead of religiously authoritarian countries - is that contraception must be paid for by the state. That may or may not be a good policy but to describe this as a "right" weakens - as AoG noted - the meaning of the word "right."

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Everything the government does can be rationalized as having a savings to the taxpayer. But this is a sophistry based on an assumption of future obligation.

Anyway, I was very skeptical about Scott's claims as it seemed he was confusing a negative right with a positive right. As I said, I would agree contraception is a negative right (people should have the right to get contraceptives without state interference / people should have a right to wear a crucifix) but not a positive right (the state should be obligated to provide contraceptives / the state should be obligated to buy everyone a crucifix who wants one). However, in reading the UN statement it appears, in fact, that they are promoting this as a positive right:

Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.

Clearly the implication here - by reference to "poor" countries instead of religiously authoritarian countries - is that contraception must be paid for by the state. That may or may not be a good policy but to describe this as a "right" weakens - as AoG noted - the meaning of the word "right."

I don't remember commenting on the negative/positive perspective. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you said here, and could not have said it better myself.

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Everything the government does can be rationalized as having a savings to the taxpayer. But this is a sophistry based on an assumption of future obligation.

Anyway, I was very skeptical about Scott's claims as it seemed he was confusing a negative right with a positive right. As I said, I would agree contraception is a negative right (people should have the right to get contraceptives without state interference / people should have a right to wear a crucifix) but not a positive right (the state should be obligated to provide contraceptives / the state should be obligated to buy everyone a crucifix who wants one). However, in reading the UN statement it appears, in fact, that they are promoting this as a positive right:

Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.

Clearly the implication here - by reference to "poor" countries instead of religiously authoritarian countries - is that contraception must be paid for by the state. That may or may not be a good policy but to describe this as a "right" weakens - as AoG noted - the meaning of the word "right."

I don't remember commenting on the negative/positive perspective. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you said here, and could not have said it better myself.

What I was saying is I switched from disagreeing with you, on page 1, to agreeing with you, on page 3 or whatever this is -

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.

Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.

Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.

The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.

ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.

Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.

One has to wonder how much time Phatscotty has been forced to spend giving out free condoms. How many of his hours spent on the ground? The seed of dissent wasted on barren earth. I, for one, am annoyed, and positively perturbed that Scotty has had to spend his time on contraception.

I personally support some kind of wristband, or non-removable tracking ankle bracelet, that says- "Hey babe- I ain't using a condom- that's your time and money." for the Scotty's of this world.